Intented prosecution - Exceed 50mph Motorway temp restriction (Roadworks) -ACD

psarinuk

Quentin wrote: »

What grounds did you use?

Maybe its time for an eye check for you!!
Refer to post 1 on this thread..

shuaibf

psarinuk wrote: »

Judas has a friend in Inactive or they are the same person!

I knew when I posted this question that it would divert from its original intention thanks to some idiots on here..

Judas, I am sure idioits like you will one day get the capability to read my post to find out how many points I've acculmulated in the past 15 years, leave alone workmen that I've killed on the road.

The roads were EMPTY!!! with no work going on! I can control a car at 60 on Motorway (I work on cars for a living). I knew I was taking a bit of risk but I thought these were average speed cameras, so I was also slower than 50 at some places to balance off but I don't know how many cameras are between junction 11 and 10, so here I am.

Going by the advice, I will take the "safety awareness program" and give the cost of supporting my family through a tough time.
Many thanks once again to all those who have contributed (I've ticked the thanks button too)..

YOU know all you had to do was go 10 mph slower to avoid all the hassle ... and i doubt wouldve made a difference in what time you got to your wife, maybe 15 min max

MORPH3US

shuaibf wrote: »

YOU know all you had to do was go 10 mph slower to avoid all the hassle ... and i doubt wouldve made a difference in what time you got to your wife, maybe 15 min max

The thing is, the OP has now gone against the vast majority of replies (possibly all of the replies, I don't remember anyone suggesting appealing) and he has appealed.

IMHO he is going to come out of this worse than if he had just done the SAC and got it over with.

MORPH3US

alleycat` wrote: »

Devils advocate:-

In the wet the braking distance at 30mph is further than 35mph in the dry.

So rain kills?

I think you comment was tongue in cheek and you realise what you put is silly but just in case...

You can't compare with two variables and then attribute the differing results to one of those variables without proof that the second variable had no effect.

Lum

pwllbwdr wrote: »

I think you need to do some maths. This may surprise you.

Assume two cars, one travelling at 30, one travelling at 35. Being generous, I'm going to say that they both put the brakes on at the same place relative to the obstruction (child/car/cat etc) and both obtain the same amount of retardation.

If the 30mph car can just stop without hitting the obstruction, how fast do you think the 35mph car will be travelling when it collides with it?

Answer: 18mph.

That never happens in the real world though. In the real world the person doing exactly 30 is constantly checking their speedo rather than looking where they are going, either because they're paranoid about getting done, or because they have swallowed the "speed kills" advertising campaign without questioning it and genuinely believe that sticking below this magic number means they are perfectly safe.

The person doing 35 has usually just crept up a little because the majority of their time is spent concentrating on the road ahead. Planning their manoeuvres, anticipating potential hazards, chances are they will see the child pratting about and scrubbed off some speed before they even step out into the road, but even if they don't, say the child runs out suddenly from a previously invisible location such as an alleyway*. This kind of driver will see the problem and instantly slam on the brakes, or swerve onto the other side of the road to avoid a collision.

So I ask you, would you rather be hit by the unobservant driver who is still doing 30 mph because they haven't seen you, or the observant driver who was initially doing 35 but was able to get it down to 18 mph because they were looking where they were going and saw you step out.

There is, of course a third class of driver, the kind that don't look where they are going or how fast they are going. From what I can gather the thrust of the "speed kills" campaign is to mitigate the effects of these idiots. Personally I would prefer a campaign where they are forced to go through retraining and then have their licences removed if they continue to be crap drivers.

While mitigating the effect of these crap drivers is not in itself a bad thing, it has the side effect of causing some formerly observant drivers to turn into idiotic speedo watching drones, which is why the ongoing fall in KSIs** that has been happening since the 60s mostly flattened out this decade despite cars made this decade being more safe for both occupants and pedestrians than ever before.


* I chose alleyway rather than the more common "two parked vans" example, because an observant driver wouldn't be going anywhere near 30mph while passing two parked vans on a residential street, they would slow down, give them a bit of a wide berth if possible, and maybe speed up once they're past depending on what the rest of the road is like.

** KSI = "Killed or Seriously Injured"

shuaibf

MORPH3US wrote: »

I think you comment was tongue in cheek and you realise what you put is silly but just in case...

You can't compare with two variables and then attribute the differing results to one of those variables without proof that the second variable had no effect.

ahh well lesson will be learned hard way

Quentin

psarinuk wrote: »

Refer to post 1 on this thread..

Where are the grounds for appeal in post #1???

Just the circumstances you see as mitigating the offence.

shuaibf

u admit you are wrong by speeding just get over it !

pwllbwdr

MORPH3US wrote: »

If that is true then its a scary thought, but it doesn't sound right to me (not saying it isn't right though).

Can you show how you worked that out?

It is true, and most people don't have an intuitive feel for this. The relevant equation is v^2=u^2+2as, so when everything else is the same, the "excess" bit of speed comes in as the difference of the squares, which you then square root.

i.e. sqrt(35^2-30^2)

All of the other factors (brake condition, alertness of driver, thinking time) are factors too, but the maths in the actual equations of motion are always there, underlying everything. You can see the effect in the stopping distances in the highway code.

Thinking distance will also have an effect - if one assumes equal thinking times then the faster car will travel further in that time and thus the brakes will be applied closer to the obstruction. I deliberately took that out of the equation just to illustrate the effect of the v^2.

I'm not going to comment on Lum's post because I don't think they've actually understood this, and I don't think it is appropriate to assume that the speeding driver is the more alert.

pwllbwdr

alleycat` wrote: »

Devils advocate:-

In the wet the braking distance at 30mph is further than 35mph in the dry.

So rain kills?

Not a very good devil's advocate I'm afraid. Braking distances are indeed further in the wet. So, not reducing your speed to match the driving conditions kills.